The irony of
warnings is that they are often heeded only after being ignored. In today’s
world, information travels at unprecedented speeds, largely due to social
media. However, beneath this rapid progress lies a darker reality—propaganda
promotion, misinformation networks, mental health deterioration, and the
psychological manipulation of the masses. These consequences, though seemingly
distinct, share a common thread: the source of the information itself. Social
media thrives on validation, and in this paradigm, those who command the most
validation wield the greatest power. Democracy has undergone a shift. Once rooted in the streets
and town halls of our neighbourhoods, it now resides in the comment sections of
social media. Spurious butterfly effects and covert operations shape
narratives, while the proprietors of these platforms move like pawns at the
behest of Big Brother.
"If
liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do
not want to hear." Social media was once a champion of free speech and the
unfiltered flow of information, a space where liberty could be exercised. But
that liberty has long eroded. Somewhere in the labyrinth of policy updates,
social media has become a prisoner of the times—an extension of state power,
monitored and maneuvered under the guise of protecting sovereignty.
A necessary
safeguard or a calculated illusion? The question remains open. Liberty and freedom are not
synonymous in legal parlance; liberty encompasses a broader scope than freedom.
Free speech—or as our Constitution terms it, Freedom of Speech (Article
19)—is the sine qua non of any healthy democracy. Yet, in the abyss of social
media, regulation is paradoxical: much of what should be controlled remains
unchecked, while much of what should be free is meticulously censored. As a
result, unpopular ideas are silenced, and inconvenient truths are buried in the
shadows. Let’s face
it—contemporary social media operates like a state of its own. Often referred
to in academic circles as a “Social State,” it has its own rules,
policies, and constitution, along with extrajudicial self-regulatory
institutions. These platforms have crafted their own free speech codes,
establishing a parallel regime of speech regulation alongside the state. More
concerningly, they assume the role of judge and jury over the legality of user
content—a function that, in a true democracy, belongs solely to the judiciary.
If one were
to lift the democratic veil behind which these social states operate, they
would find, at their core, a totalitarian DNA.
The
consequence of preaching totalitarian doctrines is the erosion of instinctive
awareness—the very ability that allows free people to discern what is or isn’t
dangerous. Free speech has traditionally been a dualist construct, with
two principal players: the State and individuals. The whip of “in
the interest of the general public” has long served as a check on speech, but a
closer reading reveals its true meaning—“in the interest of the State.”
And soon, it will extend to the Social State as well.
Social media
has fundamentally altered the nature of free speech. What was once a two-player
framework has now expanded to include a third actor—the Social State
(internet platforms). Unlike the State, these private platforms are not bound
to uphold fundamental rights, leaving users with little to no recourse against
censorship abuses.
The Indian
Constitution, with some exceptions, follows the State Action Doctrine,
derived from U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which limits the enforceability of
constitutional rights to actions by the State, not private entities. However, a
new jurisprudential shift is emerging—the horizontal application of
fundamental rights, where even non-state actors may be held accountable for
violating constitutional freedoms. The Supreme Court has laid the groundwork
for this shift in cases such as Kushal Kishore and Karmanya Singh
Sareen. While the scope and extent of this doctrine remain
unsettled, its recognition is a step in the right direction.
As speech
and discourse increasingly shift online, there is an urgent need for innovative
legal strategies to combat private censorship while simultaneously
addressing illegal speech. Social media, once a harbinger of liberty, is now
strangled by State-sponsored censorship. The State is no
philosopher-king—it will not hesitate to subsume the Social State
into its own dominion.
A balance
must be struck before the Rubicon is crossed, or we risk a future
dominated by a quasi-totalitarian regime.
